[Alive]

Hmm....

Are you making a normative or descriptive argument? I can't really tell. Of course no "right" is technically "inalienable" :

There is nothing about being a person or being human that exempts us from being assigned as property, or traded as property. There is nothing supernatural or spectacular about human beings that would make us any different from mules or cars in our capacity to be in someone else's ownership.

Yes, we all know that "rights" can physically be taken away. Is that all you are saying?

Or are you actually making a moral argument that slavery is morally acceptable? This is a fine argument to make, but I'm not sure your arguments in favor are that great.

There's nothing wrong with this, if only to the extent as there's nothing wrong with warfare in the first place, or competition in the first place.

Well, maybe there is something wrong with warfare in the first place!

Enslavement of other people's can be thought of as free competition and capitalism to its greatest extent, to an extent that allows us to compete between each other with not only the ownership of money, or guns, or horses, or cars and houses and land, but people as well.

No, stealing is not capitalism. You might argue that people should be able to sell themselves into slavery, but you don't seem to be making that argument.